Shortly after the Bondi stabbing, social media users and certain mainstream media outlets were ablaze with speculation regarding the killer’s cultural and religious background. Islamophobic and anti-immigrant sentiments surged online, with one TV network even misidentifying the attacker, stoking antisemitic rhetoric on social media. However, when it was revealed that the attacker was a white man grappling with acute mental health issues, the fervour noticeably subsided presumably because we find discussing religion and identity simpler than confronting the complexities of mental health issues.
While the man who was wrongly named as the Bondi killer by Channel Seven has sent a concerns notice, a precursor to a claim of defamation, to the network, a narrative of care emerged within the media in the aftermath of this tragedy, emphasising the need for empathy, support, and community solidarity during times of crisis – notably 'How to talk to children about the Bondi stabbings'; 'Bloody amazing’: Dad’s heartbreaking act for children in Bondi massacre'; and ''I want more’: mourning mum’s plea at daughter memorial' etc.
Then came a twist. As news media reported the country mourning the Bondi tragedy, a 16-year-old Muslim boy allegedly attacked an Orthodox Christian bishop during a livestreamed church service in Wakeley, in western Sydney. Within hours of the knife attack and the rioting by some 2,000 of the Bishop’s supporters afterwards, the boy was officially charged with terrorism, and declared to have been radicalised on social media, poisoned by a monster (enter Daesh, stage right). The video of the attack has now been geoblocked in Australia; the police have been given expanded powers to stop and search people, premises and vehicles without a warrant in the surrounding suburbs; and unlike in the case of the Bondi attack, a narrative of care for the community is missing.
Media reporting of domestic terrorism can have serious implications for affected communities, and can fuel racial prejudice more broadly, and so it’s refreshing – rather surprising – to see that some media have raised important concerns about the ethical dilemmas and disparities in the political and media portrayal of the two incidents, notably the emphasis on mental health illness in one case but terrorism in the other. Giridharan Sivaraman, the newly appointed Australian Human Rights Commission Race Discrimination Commissioner, talked to Guardian Australia about the ramifications of speedy characterisations. He shared how he had received reports that women with headscarves were scared to board trains, worried about being counter-attacked.
One factor driving these discussions within the Australian media could be the temporal closeness of the two incidents which is without precedent. Their proximity compelled media attention on both incidents simultaneously, offering a chance for journalistic introspection but also external scrutiny, particularly from communities that have reported experiencing prejudice. Had the Bondi stabbing not occurred, the situation would likely have unfolded quite differently.
Even if compelled to reflect as a result of the coincidence of the two stabbings occurring close to each other, it is still promising to witness certain media outlets confronting authorities on contentious issues that deeply divide the public and which carry risk of exacerbating tensions and fuelling further chaos and extremism. What was flawed in most of the coverage was the portrayal of the assault on the bishop not merely as an isolated incident as Bondi was, but as an assault on his religion and its adherents, perpetrated by a troubled 16-year-old whose actions unexpectedly elevate him to the status of a national security concern, capable of [mis]representing an entire religion.
This was featured in our fortnightly newsletter | Subscribe for important insights and research news straight to your inbox!
Ayesha Jehangir, CMT Postdoctoral Fellow